web analytics

“Star Witness” Hutchinson Testimony Digustingly Authored By Hollywood, Without The Slightest Pretenst of Defendability — She Is An Infil-Traitor

I watched about 25 minutes of the farce known as the Jan 6 committee. Of course put a liberal black man to rule over the “trial” of racist Trump.

This Hutchinson female though, was reading a script. And my epiphany was born….this female is an Infil-Traitor, a spy, a fake weapon of the left. Shame on her, her eternal soul shall be extinguished.

She also infilitrated Scalise, Meadows, and Cruz.

Damn her to hell. Her “service” to Scalise is used as an example of how she is a staunch republican.

The most laughably of her scripts was her describing how Trump “lunged” for the wheel of the “Beast”, and then “lunged” at the Driver.

How ridiculous is that, review the beast?

One reply on ““Star Witness” Hutchinson Testimony Digustingly Authored By Hollywood, Without The Slightest Pretenst of Defendability — She Is An Infil-Traitor”

Thank you, stock, for doing the very hard work of keeping track of the fantasy land known chiefly for its partisan politics. I for one greatly appreciate your service! Given the continued fakery of January 6 (for example, see essays by Miles Mathis), I cannot justify spending more time than I did reading your post on the latest .

In fair return, for you and|or those who continue to track another such “debate” — namely, that of abortion — with poles perfectly aligned Left – Right (or CONservative – LIEbral), I recommend the reasoned discourse of one Brandon Smith (www.alt-market.us):
EXCERPT (Introduction):

When did killing babies become normalized within American society? Many would say that it was the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade that initiated not just a tidal wave of abortions in the US but also a cultural trend of death as a means of convenience. In fact, the case was never meant to make abortion a common practice; the argument was specifically over a woman’s right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. There was also a question as to what constituted the rights of the states under the 10th Amendment to restrict such procedures.

The Supreme Court’s decision in 1973 was wildly illogical because it ignored debate on the most important and most fundamental question – Does a baby in the womb have human rights and constitutional rights? This question was skirted by the Supreme Court labeling babies within the first trimester as merely the “potentiality of life.” The court danced around the issue by asserting that the constitution does not specifically define what “life” is and when life begins.

The Founding Fathers never saw the need to “define” life and when life begins because at the time it was common sense that an unborn child was still a living human being. They never could have predicted that killing babies in the womb would come up as something our society would demand as common practice. Even though some of the founders were not orthodox Christians, they still held a certain common moral compass that would have made the thought of mass murder of children for reasons of convenience incomprehensible.

This was the stuff of Babylonian barbarism; a monstrous practice in early human history that Christianity sought to erase. Bringing child murder and fetal sacrifice back as a cultural phenomenon was such an outlandish idea that you would have been shunned from society just for arguing in favor of it.

I use the word “convenience” because that is exactly what abortion is – a matter of convenience. With the wide distribution of contraception, including birth control pills and condoms, there is simply no excuse under normal conditions for a woman to get pregnant if she doesn’t want to. Birth control pills are 99% effective, coupled with other means of contraception it is very difficult to become pregnant by accident.

No, most women get pregnant because they CHOOSE not to use these measures, for whatever reason. To understand why abortion is utterly reprehensible as well as unnecessary, we first need to examine some of the usual arguments in favor of the practice and why they fail on a rational level as well as on a moral level.

WHY would I do this, off-topic? I just discovered that some still close to me (who shall remain unnamed and unidentified) took great umbrage at the recent decision of the SCOTUS and lambasted me with some of the same arguments that BS dealt with in his essay. These folks could care less about January 6 hearings, suffering from TDS for years now. The issues and their effluent go paw-to-paw in my opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *